Is Bernie Bro over the edge?

[Horatio Parker]

One progressive idea that has merit is to have the Post Office offer basic banking service. Savings and checking.

 

[barbos]

he's an empty suit who doesn't have a clue on how to run the country.

doesn't have a clue
doesn't have a clue
doesn't have a clue
doesn't have a clue

That usually makes person qualified to be US president.

 

[bilby]

One progressive idea that has merit is to have the Post Office offer basic banking service. Savings and checking.

If you consider an idea first implemented in 1861 'progressive', then I guess so.

Americans.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

One progressive idea that has merit is to have the Post Office offer basic banking service. Savings and checking.

That's an excellent idea, but I'm puzzled as to why you consider that "progressive."

 

[Axulus]

One progressive idea that has merit is to have the Post Office offer basic banking service. Savings and checking.

Have an entity that loses billions delivering mail service despite a government enforced monopoly also provide a completely unrelated superfluous service for which it has zero experience with and no and systems in place. Brilliant.

 

[untermensche]

One progressive idea that has merit is to have the Post Office offer basic banking service. Savings and checking.

Have an entity that loses billions delivering mail service despite a government enforced monopoly also provide a completely unrelated superfluous service for which it has zero experience with and no and systems in place. Brilliant.

Anti-government service fascists have desperately tried to destroy the USPS for decades. They have imposed regulations that would have crippled any other business yet the USPS goes on.

Now they are being forced to reduce the cost of stamps by 2 cents which will cost them billions.

There are insane forces working against government services in this country. It is part of an insane mentality that government services are somehow inherently inferior. It is a joke to think any of them work unmolested.

 

[Horatio Parker]

One progressive idea that has merit is to have the Post Office offer basic banking service. Savings and checking.

If you consider an idea first implemented in 1861 'progressive', then I guess so.

Americans.

Fair enough, but progressives are the only ones advocating it. Seems appropriate to label policies advocated by progressives as progressive.

- - - Updated - - -

One progressive idea that has merit is to have the Post Office offer basic banking service. Savings and checking.

Have an entity that loses billions delivering mail service despite a government enforced monopoly also provide a completely unrelated superfluous service for which it has zero experience with and no and systems in place. Brilliant.

The USPS deficits are artificial, caused by insane pension funding demands intended by RWers in Congress to produce the very attitude you display.

 

[southernhybrid]

My primary problem with Bernie is that imo, he is an absolutist. I was once a big fan of his but once I really took a hard look at his record, I was very disappointed to realize that he rarely if ever seems willing to compromise. For example, he refused to vote for the auto bailout, despite supporting it, because it included the bank bailout. Most liberal economists explained that the bank bailout was necessary in order to prevent a much more destructive economic crisis. I'd call the bailout a necessary evil. Bernie has a history of sticking to his principles even when compromise would be a much better option. It's fine to have principles and ideals, but the only way effective government works is when both parties comes to terms with the fact that "you can't always get what you want." In other words, legislation usually has to happen somewhere in the middle. I've had enough of obstructionist Republicans. I sure don't want to see the Democrats go in that same direction.

Secondly, Bernie doesn't seem to understand just how difficult it would be to implement any of his unrealistic ideas. As a health care provider with over forty years experience, I can tell you that the US is in no way ready or capable of having single payor care for all. We have enough problems funding Medicare and there are many areas that need to be changed. How in the world does Bernie expect things to change? Does he honestly believe he can get the cooperation of the other side for single payor? If so, I'd say he's delusional. If not, he's just being another politician who makes empty promises that he knows he can't make become a reality. He speaks constantly of a revolution. Yeah. Right. We sort of tried that in the 60s but it didn't turn out all that well, despite all of our efforts.


Finally, I haven't heard him say much about foreign policy. That worries me. But, if you think Krugman, who I highly respect, is being hard on Bernie, you should hear what Barney Frank says about Bernie. It's not good.

Regardless, I will vote for Bernie if necessary because despite all of the things about him that I don't like or worry about, the Republican candidates scare me a lot more. It's foolish, imo, to think that you should only vote for someone you completely support. Nobody will ever meet all of my ideals so all I can do is look at the choices and decide who has the chance of heading the country in a better direction than the others.

 

[southernhybrid]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/interrogation/2016/03/barney_frank_is_not_impressed_by_bernie_sanders.html

Here's a little taste of what Barney says about Bernie.

Bernie Sanders has been in Congress for 25 years with little to show for it in terms of his accomplishments and that’s because of the role he stakes out. It is harder to get things done in the American political system than a lot of people realize, and what happens is they blame the people in office for the system. And that’s the same with the Tea Party. It’s “I voted for these Republicans, we have a Republican Congress, we voted for them, they took over Congress, they didn’t accomplish anything.” You gotta win at least two elections in a row.

 

[Harry Bosch]

One progressive idea that has merit is to have the Post Office offer basic banking service. Savings and checking.

The banks would love this. Banks are losing money on the retail side of banking. There's no money in taking small deposits and offering safety and checking. Banks are closing down their more remote branches all over the country.

 

[Harry Bosch]

doesn't have a clue
doesn't have a clue
doesn't have a clue
doesn't have a clue

That usually makes person qualified to be US president.

Yea, Sarah Palin and Dan Quale fit the above criteria perfectly. Noone said that they weren't qualified.

 

[TV and credit cards]

My primary problem with Bernie is that imo, he is an absolutist. I was once a big fan of his but once I really took a hard look at his record, I was very disappointed to realize that he rarely if ever seems willing to compromise. For example, he refused to vote for the auto bailout, despite supporting it, because it included the bank bailout. Most liberal economists explained that the bank bailout was necessary in order to prevent a much more destructive economic crisis. I'd call the bailout a necessary evil. Bernie has a history of sticking to his principles even when compromise would be a much better option. It's fine to have principles and ideals, but the only way effective government works is when both parties comes to terms with the fact that "you can't always get what you want." In other words, legislation usually has to happen somewhere in the middle. I've had enough of obstructionist Republicans. I sure don't want to see the Democrats go in that same direction.

Secondly, Bernie doesn't seem to understand just how difficult it would be to implement any of his unrealistic ideas. As a health care provider with over forty years experience, I can tell you that the US is in no way ready or capable of having single payor care for all. We have enough problems funding Medicare and there are many areas that need to be changed. How in the world does Bernie expect things to change? Does he honestly believe he can get the cooperation of the other side for single payor? If so, I'd say he's delusional. If not, he's just being another politician who makes empty promises that he knows he can't make become a reality. He speaks constantly of a revolution. Yeah. Right. We sort of tried that in the 60s but it didn't turn out all that well, despite all of our efforts.


Finally, I haven't heard him say much about foreign policy. That worries me. But, if you think Krugman, who I highly respect, is being hard on Bernie, you should hear what Barney Frank says about Bernie. It's not good.

Regardless, I will vote for Bernie if necessary because despite all of the things about him that I don't like or worry about, the Republican candidates scare me a lot more. It's foolish, imo, to think that you should only vote for someone you completely support. Nobody will ever meet all of my ideals so all I can do is look at the choices and decide who has the chance of heading the country in a better direction than the others.

B - I don't recall why they wrapped these two together. I would assume the bank bailout needed the auto bailout wrapped around it to make it palatable. Further, to stand on it's own, would the necessary bank bailout have had the big bank breakup attached to it in order to pass? I'm being rhetorical.

B - While I agree with your points on foreign policy and the difficulty in implementing these unrealistic policies, my conflict is Bernie is my ideal candidate save for his not wanting to push the Social Security retirement age. He is my political soulmate.

 

[Horatio Parker]

One progressive idea that has merit is to have the Post Office offer basic banking service. Savings and checking.

The banks would love this. Banks are losing money on the retail side of banking. There's no money in taking small deposits and offering safety and checking. Banks are closing down their more remote branches all over the country.

http://www.americanbanker.com/bankt...t-work-in-1910-and-it-wont-now-1079962-1.html

A postal savings system won't likely deliver better banking services. A better approach is to let customers choose what financial services in the marketplace work best for them.

I think the banks get regulatory mojo from consumer services, and would therefore be loath to give them up. Also, if they're losing money on CS now, what would happen with USPS competition?

 

[Harry Bosch]

The banks would love this. Banks are losing money on the retail side of banking. There's no money in taking small deposits and offering safety and checking. Banks are closing down their more remote branches all over the country.

http://www.americanbanker.com/bankt...t-work-in-1910-and-it-wont-now-1079962-1.html

A postal savings system won't likely deliver better banking services. A better approach is to let customers choose what financial services in the marketplace work best for them.

I think the banks get regulatory mojo from consumer services, and would therefore be loath to give them up. Also, if they're losing money on CS now, what would happen with USPS competition?

Of course the postal system wouldn't likely deliver better banking services at first. Secondly, I'm a banker. I'm telling you that banks are trying to reduce their retail footprint. There is no money in checking accounts.

 

[Horatio Parker]

http://www.americanbanker.com/bankt...t-work-in-1910-and-it-wont-now-1079962-1.html

A postal savings system won't likely deliver better banking services. A better approach is to let customers choose what financial services in the marketplace work best for them.

I think the banks get regulatory mojo from consumer services, and would therefore be loath to give them up. Also, if they're losing money on CS now, what would happen with USPS competition?

Of course the postal system wouldn't likely deliver better banking services at first. Secondly, I'm a banker. I'm telling you that banks are trying to reduce their retail footprint. There is no money in checking accounts.

I believe you. But I'm skeptical that banking interests would like to get out of CS.

Also, didn't banks overbuild brick & mortar branches a few years ago? I recall reading that in the flush times, they were expanding branches.

 

[Harry Bosch]

http://www.americanbanker.com/bankt...t-work-in-1910-and-it-wont-now-1079962-1.html

A postal savings system won't likely deliver better banking services. A better approach is to let customers choose what financial services in the marketplace work best for them.

I think the banks get regulatory mojo from consumer services, and would therefore be loath to give them up. Also, if they're losing money on CS now, what would happen with USPS competition?

Of course the postal system wouldn't likely deliver better banking services at first. Secondly, I'm a banker. I'm telling you that banks are trying to reduce their retail footprint. There is no money in checking accounts.

I believe you. But I'm skeptical that banking interests would like to get out of CS.

Also, didn't banks overbuild brick & mortar branches a few years ago? I recall reading that in the flush times, they were expanding branches.

Yes, banks overbuilt their branches greatly. Banks make money when providing services (loans, fees, treasury, and etc.) to large clients (companies or individuals with heavy banking needs). Once they secure a relationship, they make more money by expanding the relationships. We offer checking accounts and other types of retail products to our clients because they are "sticky". It makes a large profitably client less likely to leave the bank. I require that all my clients move their entire banking relationship to me. Does that make sense?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

My primary problem with Bernie is that imo, he is an absolutist. I was once a big fan of his but once I really took a hard look at his record, I was very disappointed to realize that he rarely if ever seems willing to compromise. For example, he refused to vote for the auto bailout, despite supporting it, because it included the bank bailout. Most liberal economists explained that the bank bailout was necessary in order to prevent a much more destructive economic crisis. I'd call the bailout a necessary evil. Bernie has a history of sticking to his principles even when compromise would be a much better option. It's fine to have principles and ideals, but the only way effective government works is when both parties comes to terms with the fact that "you can't always get what you want."

Which, if Bernie Sanders was a Republican, would be a valid criticism.

But Bernie Sanders is a DEMOCRAT, the party for whom "We can't always get what we want" is practically a base negotiating position.

I don't think he's foolish enough to assume he WILL always get exactly what he wants. But he's aggressive enough that his objective is to get AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE of what he wants and give as little ground as neccesary to make that happen. Contrast with Obama, who basically gives the Republicans a freebie just to put them in a more cooperative mood.

Finally, I haven't heard him say much about foreign policy. That worries me.

It shouldn't. The reason you don't hear much about his foreign policy views is because his foreign policy views are un-interesting. He thinks that terrorism is a law enforcement issue, that vigorous diplomacy is the best way to deal with North Korea and Iran, and that the U.S. military shouldn't be a tool for regime change or political engineering in foreign politics.

Basically, everything a normal rational person believes about foreign policy.

 

[Underseer]

Powerful article on Bernie. There's been something about Bernie that has bothered from day one. I'm not white and don't understand the love affair with him. I think that Paul Krugman perfectly captures my hesitation in embracing "Bernie Bro". According to Krugman, Bernie tends to go for easy solutions over hard thinking (exactly how I feel about Trump as well!). For example, Bernie thinks that breaking up the big banks will prevent future economic collapse. BS. Too big to fail didn't cause the 2008 crash. Most of the banks that wrote subprime loans were smaller non-bank entities. And most of them did fail.

I like the energy that Bernie brings. I think that at heart he's a good person. I think that he will rally around Clinton once he's eliminated. But I also think that he's an empty suit who doesn't have a clue on how to run the country. Your thoughts?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/08/opinion/sanders-over-the-edge.html?_r=0

Support of Bernie isn't a white thing. It's a young thing. Young African-Americans support Bernie. Older African-Americans seem to have pretty much the same reaction as older white Democrats. The idea that only white people support Bernie is just another lie from the Hillary camp, just like the claim that only men support Bernie. It's selling a narrative that is at odds with reality in order to support Hillary and the rest of the bribe-taking establishment.

 

[SimpleDon]

Powerful article on Bernie. There's been something about Bernie that has bothered from day one. I'm not white and don't understand the love affair with him. I think that Paul Krugman perfectly captures my hesitation in embracing "Bernie Bro". According to Krugman, Bernie tends to go for easy solutions over hard thinking (exactly how I feel about Trump as well!). For example, Bernie thinks that breaking up the big banks will prevent future economic collapse. BS. Too big to fail didn't cause the 2008 crash. Most of the banks that wrote subprime loans were smaller non-bank entities. And most of them did fail.

I like the energy that Bernie brings. I think that at heart he's a good person. I think that he will rally around Clinton once he's eliminated. But I also think that he's an empty suit who doesn't have a clue on how to run the country. Your thoughts?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/08/opinion/sanders-over-the-edge.html?_r=0

I support Clinton but felt that this column was a bit over the top. I am willing to believe that "breaking up the banks" isn't intended to be a complete policy recommendation. That it is a slogan meant to embody all of the frustration with the banks and Wall Street in general and the degree to which the Republicans and Clinton are beholden to them. And breaking up the banks by separating consumer banking from investment banking wouldn't be a bad idea.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Yes, banks overbuilt their branches greatly. Banks make money when providing services (loans, fees, treasury, and etc.) to large clients (companies or individuals with heavy banking needs). Once they secure a relationship, they make more money by expanding the relationships. We offer checking accounts and other types of retail products to our clients because they are "sticky". It makes a large profitably client less likely to leave the bank. I require that all my clients move their entire banking relationship to me. Does that make sense?

Very much so, thank you.

But it seems to contradict your initial statement that banks would welcome USPS banking.